For those not yet caught up in this week’s media outrage-pocalypse, let’s brush up on one that’s currently ablaze all over social media and news sites--weighing in among them The New York Times, Salon, HuffPo, The Washington Post, CNN, Fox, Slate, The Daily Beast, Aljazeera, Washington Times, Politico, Politifact, The New Republic, and many more. Strangely, last Friday’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher spawned a 10 minute-clip of an exasperated Ben Affleck and a staid Sam Harris arguing on misaligned frames of reference about what constitutes fair criticism of islamic dogma and what crosses that line into liberal outcries of “Islamophobia”. The issue, in general that seems to divide people on this topic is a conversational misalignment. Simply put, liberals on both sides aren’t arguing about the same thing and it’s about time we all get on the same page.
Harris puts it succinctly: “The crucial point of confusion is that we have been sold this meme of Islamophobia where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims as people. That is intellectually ridiculous.” In a reflective response blog (which is worth reading), Harris reiterates this point of confusion: “My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people.” The crux of contention seems to be the fine line between respect for multi-culturalism or cultural relativity on the one hand and progressive ideals of universal equality for all people regardless of their race, religion, creed, class, or sexual orientation on the other.
Harris puts it succinctly: “The crucial point of confusion is that we have been sold this meme of Islamophobia where every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims as people. That is intellectually ridiculous.” In a reflective response blog (which is worth reading), Harris reiterates this point of confusion: “My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people.” The crux of contention seems to be the fine line between respect for multi-culturalism or cultural relativity on the one hand and progressive ideals of universal equality for all people regardless of their race, religion, creed, class, or sexual orientation on the other.
Unfortunately, these debates are often characterized by:
- 1) the confusion between what the Quran teaches--which few Westerners take the time to read or even understand,
- 2) how varying Muslim leaders interpret those teachings--rarely understood by the outside world,
- 3) what everyday Muslims actually believe regarding those teachings,
- 4) how everyday Muslims behave in regard to their doctrines, teachings, & beliefs--which can be incredibly difficult to assess since they make up roughly 20% of the global population (~1.5 billion adherents) and are diffusely spread out all over the world.
Maher prefaces his criticism of Islam by situating his views as “liberal”: “equality for women, equality for minorities including homosexuals”. And Harris takes the next leap by asserting: “[conservative Muslims] keep women and homosexuals immiserated in these cultures and we have to empower the true reformers in the Muslim world to change it”. As with any TV debate, the claims were mostly facile & glib. Affleck associating criticism of Islam with racism & bigotry; Maher & Harris countering with statistics regarding illiberal beliefs espoused by Muslims. The clip’s a textbook case for confirmation bias--as forum debates have invariably shown. One problem with Maher's brand of acerbic criticism toward Muslims--similar but distinct from his vituperation of Christianity--lies in what others might hear as the justification for US military intervention or even possibly--the imperialist's mantra of manifest destiny.
Since the clip aired, many have weighed in, including Reza Aslan who spoke to CNN anchors Don Lemon and Alisyn Camerota choosing to home in on the issue of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as a point of defense: “it’s not an Islamic problem, it’s an African problem.” He then bandies about a few talking points about the diversity of treatment toward women in islamic countries--some let women drive & vote, others don’t (namely Saudi Arabia); some believe in honor killings for adultery, some don’t; some practice FGM, others don’t. For instance, Aslan claims (rather glibly): “facile arguments that women are somehow mistreated in the Muslim world; well, that’s certainly true in many Muslim majority countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia” but he then goes on to make observations not entirely related to mistreatment of women. Alsan, though makes one solid point: “the problem is that these kinds of conversations that we’re having aren’t really being had in any kind of legitimate way. We’re not talking about ‘women in the Muslim world’; we’re using two or three examples to justify a generalization and that’s actually the definition of bigotry.”
This topic: “women in the Muslim world” is a conversation that needs a whole lot more in-depth attention. And, the topic itself is a whole lot more important than who’s got better talking-points when it comes to transgressions toward women. What are the facts? Washington Post published a blog looking at a 2013 Pew Research Poll that surveyed 38,000 muslims in 39 countries on a wide array of topics. On this issue of “honor killings for adultery, the study found that “Overall, Muslims were more apt to find justification for honor killings for women rather than men, particularly in the Middle East. But there is a lot of variation between countries.” Set aside for a moment that ANYBODY in the 21st century thinks that murdering another human being is okay for having an extra-marital affair, and think about the wider gender imbalance of marital partners: Number of lawful wives a Muslim man may have: FOUR! Number of lawful husbands a Muslim woman may have: ONE. And that’s to say nothing of “temporary marriage” loopholes that allow Muslim men to have brief sexual encounters without the stigma of adultery. Such salacious “privileges” are denied Muslim women. Such observations, though reflect a confusion of koranic doctrine, Islamic teaching, muslim belief, and pragmatic behavior of Islamic communities.
The same confusion is true for Christianity. While the bible might espouse one thing, the teaching, the belief, & the practice of Christians tend to be widely different. Take, for instance the Christian doctrine of divorce: Jesus says (to paraphrase): Don't do it; unless adultery. (Mark 10:6-12) But the teaching of such a message has varied widely in Christian circles. And deviating even farther from that is the belief of general congregations. Add to that one more remove: the actual behavior of “believers” or the statistical rate of divorce among their demographic.
The same might be said of identifying the religious standing of a country. The United States is a case-in-point--is it religious persuasion of the “founding fathers”, the codified laws & ideals espoused in the Constitution and Declaration; is it based on the majority of early settlers or the longstanding general sentiment shown by political figures? It’s undoubtably true that the US homes a Christian majority but how many among that majority would call the US a “Christian Nation” and think of a theocracy? Much like America, it’s difficult to unilaterally identify a country like Malaysia--which has a “dual-system of law which mandates sharia law for Muslims” as “Muslim”. Muhammad Syed & Sarah Haider, Guest writers & co-founders of “Ex-Muslims of North America” over at Friendly Atheist, lay out some of their contentions with Aslan’s observations about ironically characterizing various countries with broad brushstrokes. The entire article deserves to be read in its entirety but here’s a brief segment:
Finally we come to Turkey, a country oft-cited by apologists due to its relative stability, liberalism, and gender equality. What they consistently choose to ignore is that historically, Turkey was militantly secular. We mean this literally: The country’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, created a secular state and pushed Islam out of the public sphere (outlawing polygamy, child marriages, and giving divorce rights to women) through (at times, military) force. He even banned the headscarf in various public sectors and is believed by some to have been an atheist.
Only apologists would ignore the circumstances that led to Turkey’s incredible progress and success relative to the Muslim world, and hold it up as an example of “Islamic” advancement of women’s rights.
The debate seems to derail where it should be the most germane & exigent to human rights--especially for women. It would take a pretty heartless liberal to say FGM didn’t matter. The same is true for child brides and so-called “honor killings” of women for having extramarital affairs. While having a clear picture of who perpetrates such crimes is fundamental to addressing the problem, it shouldn’t stop anybody from condemning the outdated “holy” texts, the anachronistic teachings of those texts, the outworn beliefs toward those teachings, or the more egregious performance of such teaching & beliefs.
Comments